July 22, 2010

Asserts David Broder, and I have to laugh. 1. There's the inane elevated tone of the writing: "impending elevation," "capstone of the judiciary." You know you're reading bullshit, so, thanks for that. 2. Who can possibly believe the people of Washington are abuzz over the effect Elena Kagan will have on the Supreme Court? 3. Didn't everyone figure out many weeks ago that Kagan, replacing Stevens, is only going to keep things the same?

To his credit, Broder proceeds to posit the theory that is my question #3. He puts it in the mouth of a former attorney general next to whom Broder was seated at a dinner party the other day. Gotta put in the seat-work at those D.C. dinner parties to dig up ideas for WaPo columns, you know. Broder decides this is "probably the conventional wisdom," then begins his next paragraph: "That is what they say, and I have no legal credentials to challenge their conclusion." Yes, but you are some kind of journalist — right? — so you could have asked some more people before you took what that one fellow/lady dribbled out at the dining table as what everyone was saying.

But, as I told my dinner companion...

Oh, lord, the thrill of being transported to this scintillating dinner party, in Washington, with an ancient pundit extracting conventional wisdom from a once-powerful lawyer!

... I suspect that he is wrong and that Kagan's joining Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor on the bench will change the high court in ways that no one foresees.

Quelle riposte! Oh! Would that I could be in such company! The elderly lawyer manages to say something mind-crushingly obvious, and the old pundit, keeping the colloquy going, with no legal knowledge, disagrees.

I say this based on what I saw happen in The Post's newsroom and many others when female reporters and editors arrived, in increasing numbers, starting in the 1970s and '80s.

Now, our trusty columnist does the hard work of dredging up memories from 30+ years ago. I saw those female reporters in the 70s... humming "I Am Woman" as they changed the world of men for the better... And yet you still have your job, cluttering up the pages of the Washington Post with this self-indulgent nonsense. Why hasn't some brilliant lady ousted you yet? I mean, this column has you recounting a conversation that — if I'd participated in it — I'd have gone home feeling ashamed that I'd been so dull at the dinner-table. Yet you serve it up as leftovers in a Washington Post column. And now you are feeding me this warmed over Women's Liberation stuff that is refuted — refudiated! — by the fact that you are still here writing this column.

They changed the culture of the newspaper business and altered the way everyone, male or female, did the work.

And this has something to do with Elena Kagan, coming onto the Supreme Court, where there isn't ONE Justice who hasn't shared that bench with a woman. Stevens — have you noticed? — was the last Justice who served on an all-male Supreme Court.

The women who came onto the political beat asked candidates questions that would not have occurred to male reporters. They saw the candidates' lives whole, while we were much more likely to deal only with the official part of it. So the scope of the candidate profiles expanded, and the realm of privacy began to shrink.

They also changed the rules for reporters themselves. When I joined the press corps in the 1960 presidential campaign, I was formally instructed by a senior reporter for the New York Times on the "west of the Potomac rule." What happened between consenting adults west of the Potomac was not to be discussed with bosses, friends and especially family members east of the Potomac.

Look out! The floodgates have opened! Broder's going back to 1960!

It was a protective, chauvinistic culture, and it changed dramatically when more than the occasional female reporter boarded the bus or plane.

Hey, Broder. Remember the 90s? How'd you guys do with the Clinton sexual harassment story? Are you keeping up with the allegations against Al Gore?

I don't know how having three strong-minded female justices serving simultaneously for the first time will change the world of the Supreme Court. But I will not be surprised if this small society does not change for all its members.

That's right. You don't know whether 3 women with 6 modern men will be different from 2 women with 7 modern men, and you haven't gotten up out of your antique comfy chair to do one thing to find out. Yet Broder, at this point, has run out of material on his subject. Go to the link and you'll see that he pads out his column with 200+ more words on other Kagan-related stuff that was casually rattling around in his... eminent dome... his venerable cranium... his... nugatory noggin.

And it must be so thrilling -- absolutely thrilling -- for the host and hostess of that scintillating dinner party to know that their party was the catalyst for an article in the Washington Post! Oh, if only we knew the China Pattern and the butcher who supplied the meat for the main course.

I don't know how having three strong-minded female justices serving simultaneously for the first time will change the world of the Supreme Court. But I will not be surprised if this small society does not change for all its members

My readings on the history of the court show their individual dealings with each other to be fairly insular in terms of an office workplace. In order to have the effect he's talking about, don't you have to have a banter-filled, locker-room ambiance to begin with?

On that note, I'll wholeheartedly agree. If you work someplace (like a rock radio station) that's a wall to wall sausagefest, there's going to be massive changes when the sans-sausage starts her employment...that goes without saying and operates the exact same way if it's reversed. I've been on both sides of that issue and it really just comes down to the fact that, well, we're different.

Trying to impose those same realities on nine people that, if true, are fairly insular to begin with and sit at the absolute pinnacle of their professions seems to be an exercise in futility. The life-long appointment doesn't just mean that you're above the political process. It also means you don't have to put up with bullshit from your "co-workers".

Okay, Broder is being Broderesque here but he's been, for me, a great reporter over the years.

If you go back and read his columns on the early days of Reagan or Clinton he was brilliantly prescient in predicting how their presidencies would look. Compared to some of the charlatans we have now, I'd take him any day.

I have to turn these off, not so much for the ossified straight-from-the-60s liberalism, but because the superannuated Schorr sounds like he's phoning in his commentary from a nursing home and will lapse into a fit of phlegm-rattling coughing at any second.

Can't these old fossils let go and give someone else a crack at their job?

Can't we acknowledge that Mr. Broder is of an earlier time when pundits were viewed differently. Eric Severeid is the archetype of the serious,floridly grammatic opinionator. Mr. Broder has earned his stripes. Cut him some slack.

Scott M said...Trying to impose those same realities on nine people that, if true, are fairly insular to begin with and sit at the absolute pinnacle of their professions seems to be an exercise in futility.

Agree. I worked at an ad agency at which a female creative director came in and changed the climate much as Broder describes having happened in his newsroom. The main reason it changed in my case, though, was that people started worrying about getting fired if the new boss didn't like their perspective. On the Supreme Court, there's no need to kowtow to Kagan.

Ann, this is one of your very best. Of course, it's a broad target. Nevertheless.....I started practicing law in the mid-60's. There were only 2 women in my graduating class at the Univ of Wis law school. I doubt that I viewed any case differently than anyone else and if I'd been a reporter I'd have quit rather than doing soft focus feeling pieces about the law and the Supreme Court.

He does remind me of the old farts who used to litter the bar when I started practicing though..you know the type of liberal who asked what did women lawyers do, argue bastardy cases? Honest.Or say they'd normally thank me for my assistance with a legal question by taking me to lunch but as I was a married woman they were concerned about "talk". Honest again.

@Paul -- Good call. I thought of Schorr too. Being on Nixon's enemies list was the high point of his life. Everything reminds him of 1972.

I will say that I used to read David Broder, pre-Internet. His column was picked up by my local paper. He always seemed like moderate, thoughtful guy. I haven't read him in years, but he doesn't seem to have changed much. Maybe that's just another way to say he's still kind of boring.

But I'm inclined towards MadisonMan's reaction: "The have to write about something." Even the best columnists recycle to survive.

Elitist, egotistical, sniveling drivel. The Ivy league has produced the worst politicians and policy makers to grace the slimy halls of Washington DC, Ever. Including the Usurper (father was Never a US Citizen, and was born subject to the jurisdiction of Britain, thus not Natural Born, i.e Born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents) and his merry band of Marxists that infect the halls today. Kagan, and Sotomayor will both be unseated when the Usurper is finally brought to justice.

Give poor Broder some slack. He's too old to be on Journolist, so he's on his own. This is what most commentators would sound like if they had to come up with their own stuff. There are only so many ways to rewrite your college lecture notes, and Dave's are all yellowed and crumbly.

Strong-minded? Kagan? Sotomayor? Neither seems to emit much of a transformative aura. They were appointed because they're dully reliable votes for whatever the Democratic agenda du jour may be, and that's about it. Ginsburg is another matter. Whether that's a good thing or not is another question.

I second (or would be third) that. When I listen to him I make an internal bet:

will he mention Nixon or Watergate

Now THERE'S a pundit who mails it in every week. I imagine him sitting in front of his computer looking at Google news and making a couple of off hand comments (from the screen) in his "discussion" with Scott Simon.

Broder used to be good reading. There was never any question about his slant, but his assessments used to be honest, in contrast to the young thugs of Journolist.

But ever since the Obama administration arrived in town far too many of his columns have been utterly puerile. Most notably his column shortly after the Christmas Bomber (he of the explosive underwear) and DHS secretary Janet Napolitano's subsequent announcement that "the system worked," when Broder wasted several column-inches hailing Napolitano as a star of the Democrat Party and a potential presidential candidate.

(Which identifies at least one potential Democrat candidate that Sarah Palin could handily defeat in an election.)________________________

Can’t you just see Sotomayor showing up with a big pan of cucifritos and fried plantains and Ginsberg and Kagan during up their noses at it.

“Sorry dear, but I am on a diet.” “Oh I don’t think so honey, I don’t do fried foods.” Then Ginsberg whispers from behind her hand and they giggle.

Then Clarence and Antonin and Sammy come in and chow down and complement her.

“Wow Sonia this is great. Thank you for bringing it in.” “Fuggedaboutit! I love plantains. It tastes like what I used to get when I worked in the Eastern District.” “This is really great Sonia. Anytime you bring this in I will bring in some of my home made wine. We can have a feast.”

I know Prof. Althouse doesn't think much of difference feminism, but the fact is, difference feminism has won the cultural battle, and is the worldview of everyone under 50. Prof. Althouse and I are dinosaurs, and no one believes the "equality" or "liberal" feminism we absorbed back in the day. When we die, our beliefs will die.

Althouse and I are dinosaurs, and no one believes the "equality" or "liberal" feminism we absorbed back in the day.

Probably because equality feminism has a whole slew of problems. Starting with the abject inequality of Selective Service, running through the use of womyn, and finishing somewhere in the vicinity of making housewives feel ashamed of themselves.

Every 5 or so years, journalists get rhapsodic about the transformative nature of a Minority!! Empowered!! in some area. To shorten the publication cycle, they can switch between Transformative Minorities - or always look out and find the 1st Negro doing X, the 1st Wise Latina doing Y, the 1st Great Asian Gay involved in Z.

And they can always add to the ranks of empowered transformative minority change agents. Great illegal aliens and Noble pure Muslims who give us "strength through diversity!!" are fairly popular these days.

In journalism, while we have some very solid female reporters and bloggers - Broder is wise not to tie the rise of "whole picture" female reporters to the rise of Court TV, the decline of print journalism that coincidentally started about the time females were beginning to pound keyboards enmass. As well as improve and transform the legal profession to enhance America's competiveness and standing in the world.

Traditional journalism was likely far more impacted by the male dicovery of video games and online porn as by noting on line news was available. The Legal profession compromised more by substitution of endless process TalmudicLaw over "swift and sure"...and by discovery that power and money thirsty lawyers could bypass democratic systems and get direct access to the money and clout they wanted inside the Belt Way than by money and power thirsty females saddling up to the feeding troughs..

I remember how Women in Combat was touted 10 years ago as another capstone....and something that was supposed to terribly intimidate our "Evildoer foes who hijacked the Religion of Peace" right after 9/11. Somehow, journalists dined on the idea that a female F-18 pilot safe at 50,000 feet could push a button and drop bombs on stone age Muslims was supposed to shame and embarass them into surrender or something. And this proved the validity of "invincible female warriors" and showed they belonged in SEAL units and Marine patrols in Fallujah next - even as journalists said of course the Draft should not be expanded to include Women because it is all about Choice for Women.

Of course the Evildoers soon realized it was best to keep their females breeding new baby jihadis instead of fighting, and keep them close. All so a high-IQ "female hero pilot", childless herself given her career....could not push a button in the skies overhead without killing the Evildoer's 3 women and his 18 innocent brown babies who wish to become their mujahadeen Dad or at least stay in the house and tend to his needs and then get married and plop out 8-12 new holy warriors and women of the future.

=================Meanwhile, Broders vision takes shape in two directions . Dana Priest does a great expose of the massive, to bid to know anything, out of control "counter terrorism bureacracy" the Bushies created. While out in LA, 18 trucks loaded with female reporters stand outside a courthouse, 12 helos in the air - all serving an eager to know female audience the latest Lindsay Lohan news, show any helo shots of her, or her sheriff's car. In a "whole picture" way, we learn that Lindsay cannot wear false fingernails but IS allowed fingernail polish. Her 1st meal in jail will be Turkey Tetrazinni. And she may or may not cut her long hair.

Althouse, great post. Broder has always been a joke with his uber-conventional wisdom and his 1965 mindset.

Please could all you ol' geezers - Larry King, Bob Scheiffer, Daniel Schoor, and Nina Totenberg, just retire all ready? Give someone under 65 a chance.

And talking about ol' farts. I saw Eric Sevareid as a kid = in the 70s - and thought he was boring, pompous, old fart. Later, I read more about him - including his books - and realized he was shallow, left-wing, pompous old fart.

The talk should revolve around thequestion of whether SCOTUS will makeitself irrelevant by a ruling on HCRwhich includes recognition that thepower to tax can be used to enforce_any_ law passed by Congress.

Dust Bunny: They were women before they had sexual orientations. The point of clubs is to exclude, and that particularly means mean girls clubs. Interesting, even if there are orientation issues, somehow things will shake out into a two-on-one. Unless a man is involved, then it will be three-on-one. Once the man is beaten down, then it's two-on-two. Think the three liberal women will drive the one liberal man nuts?